Hi Angela,

Quote Originally Posted by Angela Kennedy View Post
Maarten - with regard to anonymous peer review being ludicrous, it DOES also apply in logic, mathematics and physics. These academics are not above academic politics and conflicts of interest. No matter how few of them there are - they should be prepared to stand up and be accountable for their reviews.

Well... I agree in abstract principle, but I am afraid it won't work practically, and anonymous peer reviewing by real peers IF done by proper scientists, has a number of advantages non-anonymous reviewing doesn't have, because of human psychology. (But I do agree with you that "academics are not above academic politics and conflicts of interest".)
 

With regard to 'social science' not being a science, yes there is an irony. But often sociological theories cannot (yet, and maybe never) be tested. Some can. But more stuff cannot. Psychology has pretty much the same situation, again, depending on branches etc.

Yes, but I guess you may use a somewhat narrower sense of "testing" than I do. As I remarked before, Machiavelli's theories and methodology - 'Let's look at the facts: not how things ought to be but how they are!' - seem quite well tested and proved (again broadly and liberally speaking) by subsequent history.

Yes I am someone who attempts to use coherence, comprehensiveness and empirical adequacy in my own work. That makes me an empiricist sociologist and yes, I guess in many ways I do find Wright Mills 'sociological imagination' useful. But I'm also a feminist methodologist as well.

Eeek, a feminist! (Irony quotes ommitted.) Let me merely say that I hope you are a feminist a la Mary Wollstonecraft, Emma Goldman and Susan Haack, and not on the model of Greer or Sontag.

My work lately has been to critique science when bad, that makes me an empiricist feminist sociologist! There's all sorts of methodological debates as, I'm sure you know, about this in social science (and that includes psychology, at least for this discussion). Which is good. Psychiatrists should do more of that.

Hmm... we agree in principle on logic and rationality. I have had my fill of postmodern feminism, but I won't hold you responsible for them, if only because the postmodern feminists I have known held that logic and rationality were a kind of male chauvinist fascism, bourgeois science or unadulterated machism. But maybe that position may have ceased to be fashionable. At least one can hope...